Saturday, 17 March 2012

An Entrepreneurial Dilemma

You're part of an industry that's been struggling and declining on a global scale from every possible angle.  The leaders in the industry have been trying to solve the dilemma through trial and error processes but unfortunately have achieved little more than bandaids and false hopes - despite their valiant and dedicated efforts.

You're a small fish in the industry, but you've been investing a huge amount of time researching, planning and most importantly "listening".  The result ends up being the conception of a solution to this global scale problem - a solution unlike anything else that anyone else has managed to develop.  A panoptic solution that would be the catalyst of a global revolution in your industry.  A solution that provides conservative revenue projections into the billions per year in the early stages.  A solution that would end up being a "Facebook" success to your industry.

The "gurus" of entrepreneurs and start-ups insist that in order to gain any momentum or attention with such a concept you must launch a working model, even a mini version, on a public scale to prove viability.

But here's the thing... protection of Intellectual Property in this regard is near impossible. So a small fish, without the resources for a massive global launch, manages to go live with a mini-version that proves to be a viable concept. It gets the attention of the big fish - but there is nothing stopping them from simply adopting and expanding on the concept without any consultation or compensation back to the founding entrepreneur who developed the concept.

So what's a small fish to do?
**All comments, suggestions and advice gratefully accepted on this one**

Sure it might be a noble idea to simply hand over an industry salvation solution to the people with the resources.  But let's face it, money talks and I've got a family to feed.

I am the above referenced small fish and yes, I've conceptualized an extraordinary solution to the problems print media has been facing for the last decade. 

A solution for:
  • the challenges newsrooms have been facing in their transition from print to digital, in their content being pirated across the Internet and in finding the viable revenue model;
  • the frustration journalists have been facing in the devaluation of their trade (and simply not getting paid a fair wage, or even at all, for the hardwork they put into their reporting);
  • the hopelessness that businesses have been facing as their advertising efforts produce less and less results during this chaotic approach to marketing in a new era;
  • the future needs, wants and desires of the consumers - though they themselves aren't likely aware of what those needs, wants and desires are just yet, but it's coming - putting us one step ahead and "building for the needs of tomorrow rather than the demands of today"
There is nothing particularly 'magical' about my solution - it's relatively simple (in concept) and extremely logical, which is why it is nearly impossible to argue against the viability of it - even when there is a lack of viability 'proof'.  Of course there will be nay-sayers who will try, there always is - but it's pretty tough to hold a compelling argument against logics, common sense and black & white bottom line projections once you know all the facts.

I follow a fair number of media people through Twitter and they're all pretty much saying the same things.  So which ones of the power and money people are going to pay attention to what I'm saying here?  I'm not a fly-by-nighter or someone full of hot air.  My solution has been sufficiently developed in concept that it could enter the production phase immediately.  It could feasibly launch version 1 within 12 months on a global scale with the right partners grouped together.

What's stopping me? A lack of resources... ie: connections, money and people.

Unlike Facebook, I can't build a mini-version of this, under the radar and build it up into something that will catch someone's attention to approach me on it and then transform the print media industry - there are just too many people specifically looking for something like this to run with. It would be swiped, modified and duplicated before I could barely get it off the ground. 

So for this project to launch and to have the global impact it's capable of having, I need to recruite the partners capable of bringing it to life.  Being a Canadian, I would first and foremost love to see it be a team of Canadian founders that bring this to market - but at the end of the day, it simply needs to get to market by whatever means necessary.

If you agree with any of the following:
  • that the print industry is suffering
  • that the "solutions" to date have been little more than bandaids and false hopes
  • that journalists are under valued and under utilized
  • that the general quality of journalism is declining (for various reasons when looking at the "whole") or at very least being diluted by less than professional writers
  • that digital advertising has not been consistently delivering the results to the businesses that they had hoped for or needed (ie: noticable increase in sales)
  • that businesses have been treading the marketing waters and succumbing to media hopping in the hopes of finding something that works
  • that many consumers are becoming more and more disconnected from "news"  - especially at local levels
If you are in a position to be a founding partner in a global project that will be the catalyst of a media revolution;

If you have the connections to investors looking for a world changer with an enormous return;

Then let's talk.

I'd sure appreciate you sharing this to see what kind of thoughts just might be out there.

1 comment:

  1. As a point of interest to those whose first thoughts are "show me the money" ....

    By the end of the 4th year, this model puts approximately 1.6b per year into the combined pockets of newsrooms (between their journalists and sales teams) and still leaves a net profit of approximately $90m per year after repayment of investment funds and taxes.

    Plus, this is calculated on only ONE of the primary revenue streams that this model offers. For realistic & viability reasons I have been conservative on the potential revenues and aggressive on the expenses. It is entirely possible for this model to realize significantly higher returns.